You're not getting it. The concept of a non-transparent blockchain precludes there being "bad" outputs. There is, in general, no-deanonymiziing (certainly no assurance of it) and just outputs (coins) and transactions.

You have nothing to fear from spending on a doomed fork, because either nothing at all happens (transcation ends up being executed on both forks -- some of this happened after the malleable block attack last month), or you will get your coins back. Recipients have everything to fear from receiving on a doomed fork, because they may very well lose their coins. That is just the same as any other coin, unless recipients are pinning their hopes on some kind of targeted rollback and/or freeze on "bad" coins. That would be quite foolish (in addition to being not even possible in many cases on a non-transparent blockchain, and even transparent blockchains in a lot of cases).

The concept of good outputs and bad outputs exist only in theory on transparent blockchains anyway. For example, after the recent Nxt hack there was a proposal to freeze or unwind the hacked coins by creating a fork (not sure which as I don't really follow Nxt). A version of the code that enforces that was released and some people adopted it. However, ultimately it was rejected by the community and that fork died, so the "bad" coins stayed where they are.

This is by design. You can't have strong fungibility if people can pick and choose good and bad coins. There are simply coins and transactions, with the surviving fork (whatever that is) deciding where they go.